Steve Fossett

[cvsfly]

And your point is this is a bad thing? Lot of cynical people around here these days. I think it is great some people still have a sense of adventure these days whether they are rich or not. I hear so many people these days come down hard on rich or I dare say sucessful people. Now that's Communistic. Doesn't mean that being rich and sucessful is for everybody (like me). I suppose it would be nice think that the rich people in the world should spread their wealth around to you. But that is not reality and would guarentee no motivation to become sucessful and create wealth and employment for others. I do think if you have the good fortune to have wealth you should "pay" back some. To think all rich people got there dishonestly is right in line with Marx and Lenin. Sure there are rich crooks, but they don't have a monoply on it. Sorry if you haven't acheived the riches you deserve. Deal with it.

 

[Timebuilder]

Absolutely.

This is how most of our private and charitable institutions are able to survive. This is funding source for research conducted by the American Cancer Society, the Alzheimer's Foundation, MS, Lung Association, and the hundred other odd disease focused institutions operating today. In addition, every dollar that Fossett and those like him are able to invest creates a driving force in our economy, not the least of which is jobs for pilots like you and I.

Too many Americans have bought into the idea of "class envy" as pushed by liberals. The irony is that those same liberals eat in the same restaurants as the wealthy Americans they speak against, and happily accept campaign contributions from them! To say that this is disingenuous of them is to be extremely kind.

 

[flydog]

Is it a bad thing?

Well its deceptive

For one the charity doesnt get $1,000,000 up front as the newspaper reports. Many times the agreement can be cancelled if the corporation is in dire financial straits.

The money that would have been paid in taxes goes into Fossett's pocket. This means the rest of us citizens have to bear a larger burden of providing tax revenues to run the country. The next time congress meets and they need another billion for the budget guess who has to pay that. Not Steve Fosset, itll be you and me.

I never said that giving money to charity is a bad thing. I contend that the motive of most of these people is to make a buck not to be good samaritans. If the tax loophole was closed donations would dry up.

The other driving force is good publicity. When Ted Turner give a billion to charity he makes the prime time news.

Another little mentioned fact is sometimes these donations are accompanied by the appointment of a relative, friend or employee to the board of the charity. Officers and directors of large charities can earn millions a year in compensation.

If I was rich I would do the same thing but I disagree with people that put these people like Ted Turner and Steve Fossett up on a pedestal because of their so-called "donations". There is a profit motive behind it not a sense of good citizenry

Of course there are people that give out of the goodness of their heart and my goal is not to demean that.

 

[Timebuilder]

>>The next time congress meets and they need another billion for the budget guess who has to pay that. Not Steve Fosset, itll be you and me.

I don't want to be accused of beating yet another "dead horse" here. Actually, it is unlikely that "you and me" will pay our proportional share of the tax burden. Over 50 % of taxes are paid by the top 5% of wage earners. Those of us who make too much to receive government assistance will make up the other 50%.

My posts here should not be construed as putting anyone up on a pedestal. My point is that the acrimony I saw early in this thread is not apropriate to who the wealthy are, or what they do in our society. Clearly our system of government and our economic system is superior to all others on the planet, and the ability to start with nothing and end up with a lot is part of the American Dream. I think it is foolish to be critical of an acomplishment because it was done by a rich man, with lots of help, and time to do the deed. We should instead be glad that this is representative of a freedom that few countries on earth enjoy, and that you don't need to be a king, a prince, or a duke to enjoy the benefits of being an American.

Is is no doubt comforting to some to think of the wealthy as uncaring, motivated only by greed, and willing to slit their mother's throat for a nickel. In that case, the only ethical position would be to give up your job, since you are almost undoubtedly unable to have that job without a wealthy individual, bank, insurer, stockholder or customer to make that job a reality.

On a personal note, I REALLY don't like Ted Turner. I'd get into line, but that line is just too long.

 

[414Flyer]

yeah I noticed the acrimony towards him because he is rich, also. Those who succeed in life, I think should be looked up to, and not denigrated because they make a lot of money. He made his money, and is not putting it to use, and spending a lot in the process. That is what helps keep the ecomony going. Class warfare, or class envy , doesnt do anyone any good.

Besides, It wasnt like just paid someone to fly the balloon for him, and he just sat there.

Something else that impressed me was that he was still personally involved in Scouting, a group I hold in very high esteem from my own personal involvement. PLenty of wealthy people are just willing to hand over checks for causes..But how many actually get involved personally and give of their own time, especially groups that are beneficial to young people.

 

[Timebuilder]

Agreed.

Don Imus, who often irritates me with his morning show, could have just written a check to a group like the Sunshine Foundation. Instead, he and his wife, along with his brother, took a personal initiative to brighten the fear-filled and painful lives of some children by starting The Ranch.

Now then again, if I find out that there was some kind of balloon PFT involved...